RSS Feed

Лечение аллергии-Allergy treatment

HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: ANIMAL CONTACTS

Nearly one quarter of the homosexual offenders vs. children sometime in their postpubertal lives had sexual contact with an animal. This is the second largest proportion recorded. While for other tripartite groups of sex offenders these proportions vary widely, it is worth noting that the homosexual offenders are not thus scattered but form a quite cohesive unit occupying second, third, and fourth places in the rank-order.

In age-specific incidence the homosexual offenders vs. children begin at a moderate level: 10 per cent had animal contact between puberty and age fifteen. Thereafter they rise to third rank in age-period 16-20 (9 per cent), tie for the first rank in age-period 21-25 (7 per cent), and occupy undisputed first rank in age-period 26-30 with 5 per cent. These offenders, one will recall, ranked first among those with dreams of animal contact and fourth in masturbatory fantasy of this activity; the figures are small in absolute terms, but indicate an above-average interest in sexual activity with animals. Since the group is not particularly rural in background and the other homosexual offenders are even less so—in fact, they are among our most urban groups—one must obviously look elsewhere for an explanation for the unusual incidence of animal contact.

We are of the opinion that self-masturbation and sexual contact with animals are basically very similar; one may legitimately think of animal contact not as something unique and separate, but as a form of self-masturbation—the human using the animal merely as a masturbatory device. Since the homosexual offenders are characterized by their great emphasis on masturbation, it may well be that their relatively high incidence of animal contact experience is simply the result. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the heterosexual aggressors vs. minors, who have the highest incidence (33 per cent) of animal contact, also display an uncommon amount of self-masturbation.

While, as is usual, most of the animal contact occurs between ten and twenty, the homosexual offenders and particularly the homosexual offenders vs. children tend to continue it later in life. This tendency cannot be shrugged off by saying that since our homosexual-offender sample is larger than our other sex-offender samples one could expect to find more cases of rare activity, for our two other large sample groups, the prison and the control, do not contain anyone who had animal contact beyond age thirty-five. Indeed, in the prison group there was no animal contact beyond age twenty-five.

*177\161\2*

INCEST OFFENDERS VS. CHILDREN: SUMMARY

The early life of the typical incest offender vs. children was stigmatized by a poor adjustment between him and his parents, an even worse adjustment between his father and mother, and—not surprisingly—a rather large number of divorces and separations. To this was added financial trouble, so that taken as a whole his home must have been rather a wretched place.

One could make a good argument that in his boyhood the incest offender vs. children turned from his unhappy home situation and relied on sex for his emotional needs. There was much prepubertal sex play, chiefly with girls. After puberty his reliance on sex became stronger and more easily recognized.

The typical offender, as an adult, appears to be a rather ineffectual, nonaggressive, dependent sort of man who drinks heavily, works sporadically, and is preoccupied with sexual matters. This last trait is seen in his great emphasis on mouth-genital contact, variations of coital position, and lengthy foreplay—all statistically abnormal in his socioeconomic stratum. To this list can be added a high incidence of extramarital coitus, a high incidence of masturbation while married, and strong sexual response to thinking of or seeing females.

A man who is thus preoccupied with sex, who is often at home with the children during periods of unemployment (also the wife is frequently away working), and who drinks heavily, is a man ripe for an incest offense.

*135\161\2*

HETEROSEXUAL AGGRESSORS VS. MINORS: PREMARITAL COITUS

Ninety-six per cent of the aggressors vs. minors had premarital coitus. They exceed most groups in the accumulative incidence of those with this experience: 46 per cent (second rank) by age fourteen, 74 per cent (second rank) by age sixteen, and 88 per cent (second rank) by age eighteen. At older ages they lose their position of leadership.

In age-specific incidence they are again quite high, ranking third from puberty to fifteen, with half of their number having had premarital coitus with companions in that span of time. In the next age-period they rank first with 91 per cent, and in the next age-period (21-25) they rank second with 87 per cent. In terms of age-specific incidence of premarital coitus with prostitutes, they have moderate percentages.

Of all our comparative groups, fewest of the aggressors vs. minors (8 per cent) had their first coitus with a prostitute. This unexpected fact is probably in part the result of the large number who began coitus at an early age. In general, prostitutes are disinclined to welcome very young clients. It is probable that the relative social and sexual success enjoyed by the aggressors vs. minors in their teens would tend to minimize their commercial coitus.

There is nothing outstanding about the frequency of their premarital coitus with companions. On the basis of the rather small sample, it appears that the average (median) individual had relatively low frequencies between puberty and age fifteen (10 per year) and moderate frequencies (18 per year) between sixteen and twenty. The mean frequency shows an intermediate rank-order position between puberty and twenty (1.3 per week). The proportion of total outlet derived from premarital coitus with companions is always moderate. In the one age-period (16-20) where sample size permits calculation of frequency of premarital coitus with prostitutes, the aggressors vs. minors display the lowest frequency, mean or median. Naturally the proportion of total outlet derived from such coitus is also small.

Before marriage the average aggressors vs. minors had coitus with about ten companions—a moderate number but well above the number reported by the control group. The number of prostitutes, whether in the total life span or in premarital life, is low (six). The median control-group individual had gone to ten prostitutes prior to marriage.

In summary, the aggressors vs. minors appear as a moderately successful group as far as obtaining coitus with companions is concerned, and while they were willing to resort to prostitutes when companions were unavailable (hence their somewhat high figures in accumulative incidence) they seldom needed to do so (hence the low number of prostitute partners).

Like the aggressors vs. children, the aggressors vs. minors were relatively free from the restraints that prevented many others from having a greater amount of premarital coitus. In fact, the aggressors vs. minors are the least restrained of any group. Only 4 per cent reported that moral considerations had seriously interfered with their coitus; 7 percent (again a very low percentage) said that fear of impregnating their partner was a real deterrent; and 4 per cent (still the smallest percentage ) were inhibited by fear of disease. Again 4 per cent (this time the second smallest proportion) reported that fear of adverse public opinion was a strong restraint. Lack of opportunity was by far the most important deterrent, four fifths reporting that this was a definite reason for their not having more premarital coitus; this is the largest percentage reported by any group. The fact that their incidence figures are large while their frequencies are rather low seems to substantiate their complaint. A moderate number, 24 per cent, told us that lack of interest was a major reason for not having more frequent coitus. Some of this 24 per cent represents satiety, although the aggressors vs. minors are not notable for their number of coital partners; an additional portion may be genuine disinterest, since the aggressors vs. minors display (as we shall see) a fairly strong homosexual component.

In connection with the absence of restraints and the relative sexual amorality, it is interesting that no aggressor vs. minors expressed a strong desire that his bride be virginal. On the other hand, few wanted an experienced bride; the majority (69 per cent) were completely indifferent.

*93\161\2*

HETEROSEXUAL OFFENDERS VS. MINORS: MARRIAGE

Nearly 62 per cent of the offenders vs. minors had married before they contributed their case histories, the average individual having married at age twenty-one. The accumulative incidence figures show that by forty-five some 84 per cent of the offenders vs. minors had married. These married men had spent 41 per cent of their lives after puberty as husbands—a moderate proportion and one very similar to that of the other heterosexual offenders. They were, however, much more monogamous than the offenders vs. children: nearly two thirds had married only once, a moderate proportion. They were not distinctive in the number of brief marriages that ended in separation or divorce.

On the other hand, they had known their future wives for a relatively long time prior to marriage, and about half a year longer than the average offender vs. children. Actually, the offenders vs. minors share with the homosexual offenders vs. children the honor of the longest prenuptial acquaintance of all sex offenders; only the control group surpasses these two.

About half had had premarital coitus with the women they eventually married and only a moderate percentage of the women marched pregnant to the altar. This same reproductive moderation is again seen after marriage: there were 16 children born for every ten offenders vs. minors. Since the average married offender vs. minors was thirty-three years old at the time of interview, additional children can be expected.

There is nothing distinctive about this group of men so far as the time spent in precoital petting in marriage is concerned, but in the techniques they used they do appear apart from others. The married as well as the single men were averse to mouth-genital contact. Eighty-five per cent, the largest proportion of any group, had never had mouth-genital contact in marriage. As we have previously pointed out, this evident aversion to mouth-genital contact may well be partly a result of our sampling—the great majority of our offenders vs. minors and adults came from one institution and are more rural and less educated than most other sex offenders; these characteristics are usually associated with lesser incidence of mouth-genital contact.

A similar conservatism in coital technique is seen in a study of coital positions: 25 per cent of the offenders vs. minors, a rather large proportion, had never employed any but the usual female-supine male-prone position in marriage. An even stronger indication of conservatism is the fact that only 3 per cent had ever had anal coitus with their wives— this is the second smallest percentage recorded, even less than that of the control group.

While the offenders vs. minors displayed rather extensive premarital sexual lives, their frequencies of marital coitus are, by and large, moderate. The average (median) offender vs. minors began with a marital coital frequency of 2.8 per week in age-period 16-20, a frequency that declined to 1.75 by age-period 36-40. These figures are less than those of the control group. The proportion of total sexual outlet derived from marital coitus is also moderate, ranging from 80 to 90 per cent.

Insofar as the wife’s sexual satisfaction was concerned, the offenders vs. minors claimed a rather good record, according to their possibly optimistic report. Some 62 per cent of the years of marriage found the wives experiencing orgasm 90 per cent or more of the time—only three of our usual 16 comparative groups exceed this figure.

When asked to rate their marriages in terms of happiness, the offenders vs. minors gave a good but not glowing report. They stated that 46 per cent (fourth largest) of their years of marriage were very happy; 26 per cent (relatively few) were moderately happy; 18 per cent (a moderate proportion compared to other groups) of the years were rather unhappy; and few (10 per cent) were very unhappy years.

*51\161\2*

METHODS AND TERMS: INCIDENCE

In this study we have employed three kinds of incidence:

1. Ever-never. This is the simplest form of incidence, telling whether a person ever or never had a particular experience. For example, 76 per cent of the control group had premarital coitus.

2. Accumulative. This form of incidence tells one what percentage of individuals ever had a particular experience by a given age. For example, 72 per cent of the control group had premarital coitus by age twenty.

3. Age-specific. This form of incidence tells what percentage of individuals experienced a particular activity within a given period of time. We have chosen five years as the period of time and have labeled these years in terms of the person’s age. Thus, after the initial age-period of puberty-15, we have five-year age-periods such as 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, etc. There are, however, a number of important exceptions to this generalization. For instance, we use puberty as a beginning point of adult life, and since puberty is attained at varying ages our first age-period, puberty-15, may contain fewer or more than five years. In the rare cases where puberty is reached after fifteen, our usual second age-period, 16-20, may contain fewer than five years. A termination point in an age-period occurs at the time the person was interviewed: a man interviewed at age thirty-eight obviously has not lived all five years of age-period 36-40. Thus a man’s last (or current) age-period is usually less than five years in duration.

    In addition to these time distortions at the beginning and end of a life span, there may be others if the person has been in an institution. We have in this study ruled out the years of life spent in prisons and mental institutions; hence, part or all of an age-period may be deleted. For example, a man who between thirty-one and thirty-five spent three years in a prison has only two years of noninstitutional life in that age-period, but we treat these two years as if they were five. In brief, we assume that had he not been imprisoned the three years would have not been importantly different from the two years he actually lived outside of prison. This assumption is easily defended in cases where the man was «out» at ages thirty-six and thirty-seven and imprisoned from thirty-eight to forty. However, the assumption is in greater danger of error when the man was imprisoned from thirty-six to thirty-eight and «out» from thirty-nine to forty—here the assumption overlooks the possible effects of prison on postprison adjustment. Since we encounter all possible combinations of prison and nonprison life within and overlapping our five-year age-periods, it has been deemed impractical to attempt at this time anything beyond what we have done.

In order to be counted in an age-period a person must have lived six months or more in that period. For example, a man aged thirty-six years and five months is retained in age-period 31-35. whereas a man who has lived thirty-six years and six months graduates into age-period 36-40.

In both accumulative and age-specific incidence, as well as in many of our presentations of frequency, we use five-year age-periods that end on a quinquennial year as follows: puberty-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30, etc. These class intervals do not agree with those used by the census and many others, who prefer to begin their periods with a quinquennial year, for example: 15-19, 20-24. Neither method has any great advantage over the other; we have retained our method only because our raw data are often expressed in this form.

Incidence, as we currently define it, concerns the presence or absence of a particular activity regardless of whether that activity resulted in orgasm.

*8\161\2*